Observational study reveals LCP fixation improves knee function and recovery compared to non-locking techniques in complex fractures.
Background: Distal femur fractures represent a significant orthopedic challenge, requiring optimal fixation techniques to restore knee joint function and promote fracture healing. The choice between Locking Compression Plate (LCP) fixation and Non-Locking Plate fixation significantly impacts functional outcomes. Objective: To compare the functional outcomes of distal femur fractures treated with LCP fixation versus Non-Locking Plate fixation, focusing on knee function, fracture union time, range of motion, and post-operative recovery. Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences involving 60 adult patients (aged 18-70 years) with distal femur fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 30 treated with LCP fixation and 30 with Non-Locking Plate fixation. Fractures were classified using Muller's classification system. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scoring system. Results: The LCP group demonstrated superior functional outcomes with 83.2% achieving excellent knee scores compared to 75.3% in the Non-Locking Plate group (p=0.004). Mean range of motion was significantly higher in the LCP group (111° ± 18.1) compared to the Non-Locking Plate group (92° ± 17.2) (p=0.0001). LCP fixation was preferred for complex fractures (C1, C2, C3 types), while Non-Locking Plates were more commonly used for simpler fractures. Conclusion: LCP fixation provides superior functional outcomes compared to Non-Locking Plate fixation, particularly for complex distal femur fractures, demonstrating better knee function, improved range of motion, and faster rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jain et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: